Apple files for 'Mactel' trademark

A post to the blog of CNet news.com journalist Ina Fried points out that the same day that Steve Jobs announced Apple's plans to adopt Intel chips, the company filed a trademark application for the term "Mactel."

I'd also prefer MacIntel to MacTel. Sounds like a cheap telephone company. (actually there is a discount long diatance company in Canada called WinTel). Actually, all the names I have heard, I dislike MacIntel the least, that is to say I don't like it either.

But, somehow I don't think Apple is going to tie their product names to the name of another company. They never have before, There wasn't MotoMac, or MacIBM or IBMac.

They have however tied in the processor name or a part of it anyway, i.e. PowerMac from PowerPC.

Perhaps we will see iMac-x86, or PowerMac x86. Don't like those either.

Maybe the names will have nothing to do with the cpu and they will start using other elements or made up words like other companys do, or usig their code names like they have with the OS, or just words that sound catchy like they used to(i.e. 'Quattro')

Maybe they will just use X, like they did for the OS. Macintosh X Professional, iMacX. This could tie in both the OS and the cpu.

I don't know. I just blindly assume that Apple will use names that capture the essence of the computers, like PowerMac did/does; is marketable and is catchy.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

It's a silly name they'd never use, even if Intel let them--but it's smart to TM it preventively. And maybe some other similar terms too.

People are informally referring to Intel Macs as "Mactels" etc. anyway. Now imagine the confusion in a year if some company starts selling computers CALLED Mactels! Especially while many people are still assuming you can soon put OS X on any PC at all. (They might even pirate OS X and sell it, in a country without enforced piracy laws!)

It's a silly name they'd never use, even if Intel let them--but it's smart to TM it preventively. And maybe some other similar terms too.

People are informally referring to Intel Macs as "Mactels" etc. anyway. Now imagine the confusion in a year if some company starts selling computers CALLED Mactels! Especially while many people are still assuming you can soon put OS X on any PC at all. (They might even pirate OS X and sell it, in a country without enforced piracy laws!)

Somebody would be bound to do it. Apple's dodging that confusion.

I agree with your post...except the part about protecting themselves in countries without enforced privacy laws...in which case those companies would still use Mactel if they wanted to.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

They will probably just sit on this one as a CYA, everyone uses it now, but I cannot see this being a product name for apple, they just dont want someone else to make somthing with that name (think 1-2 years from now is there is a PCI card or software to allow OSX to run on cheapo boxes(think x box mod chips))

You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.

Says the U.S. Patent and Trademark's web site, that's who. They will NOT grant the applicant the registration if they don't actually use it.

You either have to be using the trademark name in commerce already or have a ligitimate intent to use it. Here's a quote from their site: "NOTE: If you file based on intent to use, you must begin actual use of the mark in commerce before the USPTO will register the mark..."

Go to this link and scroll down to "Basis for Filing" to see for yourself:

Originally posted by MacUser1Says the U.S. Patent and Trademark's web site, that's who. They will NOT grant the applicant the registration if they don't actually use it.

You either have to be using the trademark name in commerce already or have a ligitimate intent to use it. Here's a quote from their site: "NOTE: If you file based on intent to use, you must begin actual use of the mark in commerce before the USPTO will register the mark..."

Go to this link and scroll down to "Basis for Filing" to see for yourself:

Originally posted by toes... And if you had actually read the entire paragraph you would have noticed that underneath it it says right away:

"Is there any other possible filing basis?

Yes. Although not as common, you may base your application on international agreements. <...>"

Well, I actually did read the paragraph below, and like it states, it's referring to foriegn applications. Apple is in the U.S...I'm not a trademark lawyer, but it doesn't sound like it's a filing basis that applies to Apple. And where in that 3rd reason does it state, "Yes, you can file just for the sole reason of blocking it from someone else to use"? What does that have to do with "international agreements"? Please enlighten me, since you're the brainiac here.

But, somehow I don't think Apple is going to tie their product names to the name of another company. They never have before, There wasn't MotoMac, or MacIBM or IBMac.

SNIP!

I just blindly assume that Apple will use names that capture the essence of the computers, like PowerMac did/does; is marketable and is catchy.

Sorry for the snips I just wanted to point out that there may be a difference with Intel in that Intel likes to promote computer manufactures that help promote them. For example if you were to adopt Centrino technology in your computers and would advertise that Intel would match what you spent with 3 to 4 dollars of advertisement for the technology and maybe for your computers. Apple is not stupid for example ths new breed of processors that Intel has and Apple will be using, if Apple advertises this technology Intel will promote it as well to the tune of 3 to 4 dollars of advertising for every dollar Apple spends. So Apple adops Intel processors xxx and advertises tham as XMacs featuring Intel xxx processors, Intel will match that ad campaign with 3or 4 dollars for every dollar that Apple spends for an ad campaign that touts the Intel processors xxx, and may mention that they are to be found in XMacs. So now let's say Apple wants to spend 1mil on advertising they may also get mentioned in the ads that Intel will be matching Apple with, but Intel will be spending 3 to 4 million on their ads. So Apple may get 2mil or 3mil worth of advertising out of their 1mil in ads. Compare that with IBM who says hey if you want low power chips pay us and we will develope them, and you can advertise them. It appears to me that Apple will have more money for advertising since they don't have to pay IBM, and Intel may mention Apple computers in their advertising. So Apple pays less for the chips, less for the technology, does not have to pay Intel to develope technologies for them, and Apples advertising dollars will go much further.

Originally posted by BrendonSorry for the snips I just wanted to point out that there may be a difference with Intel in that Intel likes to promote computer manufactures that help promote them. For example if you were to adopt Centrino technology in your computers and would advertise that Intel would match what you spent with 3 to 4 dollars of advertisement for the technology and maybe for your computers. Apple is not stupid for example ths new breed of processors that Intel has and Apple will be using, if Apple advertises this technology Intel will promote it as well to the tune of 3 to 4 dollars of advertising for every dollar Apple spends. So Apple adops Intel processors xxx and advertises tham as XMacs featuring Intel xxx processors, Intel will match that ad campaign with 3or 4 dollars for every dollar that Apple spends for an ad campaign that touts the Intel processors xxx, and may mention that they are to be found in XMacs. So now let's say Apple wants to spend 1mil on advertising they may also get mentioned in the ads that Intel will be matching Apple with, but Intel will be spending 3 to 4 million on their ads. So Apple may get 2mil or 3mil worth of advertising out of their 1mil in ads. Compare that with IBM who says hey if you want low power chips pay us and we will develope them, and you can advertise them. It appears to me that Apple will have more money for advertising since they don't have to pay IBM, and Intel may mention Apple computers in their advertising. So Apple pays less for the chips, less for the technology, does not have to pay Intel to develope technologies for them, and Apples advertising dollars will go much further.

Yup, fully aware of Intel and their co-marketing dollars. Bu to qualify, all you have to do is mention them in your marketing, i.e. 'Intel Inside', or the Intel jingle and the end of your commercial. You do not have to name your computer line after them. Hence, we do not see the DellIntel or InDell or whatever.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Originally posted by TulkasYup, fully aware of Intel and their co-marketing dollars. Bu to qualify, all you have to do is mention them in your marketing, i.e. 'Intel Inside', or the Intel jingle and the end of your commercial. You do not have to name your computer line after them. Hence, we do not see the DellIntel or InDell or whatever.

Like ProMac, or PowerMac, or Pro XMacs, etc. Yes. Apple would add the words "featuring the Intel xxx processors. MacTel could be the name of a series of information pages letting the general public in on the Mac Intel connection. How it affects the end user.